Essen Labour Court, judgement of 16.04.2024, (3 Ca 2231/23)
When collective bargaining autonomy and equality collide - a case with a signalling effect
It rarely happens that a dispute about a special payment, which in itself seems technical, touches on the basic principles of constitutional law. But this is exactly what happened in a case before the Essen Labour Court. The decision of 16 April 2024 is an example of how courts respect collective bargaining autonomy, but are nevertheless prepared to draw boundaries when this autonomy puts employees at an inappropriate disadvantage.
The focus was on a question that is probably familiar to many parents in the public sector:
Are employees on parental leave entitled to the collectively agreed inflation adjustment?
The collective agreement on special payments to mitigate increased consumer prices (TV Inflationsausgleich) excludes employees who are not entitled to remuneration - i.e. in particular parents on parental leave without part-time work - from receiving this payment. The plaintiff did not want to accept this. And in the end, the court largely ruled in her favour.
The initial situation: parental leave, rising prices and a collective labour agreement with loopholes
The plaintiff had been on parental leave since summer 2022 and was therefore - according to a strict reading of the collective agreement - not entitled to claim. This was not a marginal issue, but a deliberately chosen point of regulation: employees had to be entitled to at least one day's pay during the reference period.
At the same time, however, the same collective agreement contains exceptions that lead to contradictions. For example, employees receive inflation compensation even if they:
-
receive sick pay and do not receive a sick pay supplement,
-
sickness benefit, i.e. also not an employer benefit.
This is where the logic of the collective agreement begins to falter. Why should parents on parental leave - who also do not receive any employer benefits - be treated worse than employees who are absent due to illness or illness of their child?
The plaintiff argued that the regulation violated the principle of equality and led to indirect discrimination against women, as they take parental leave more frequently and for longer periods. The employer pointed out that the parties to the collective agreement had room for manoeuvre - and that there was no entitlement to remuneration during parental leave.
The court compared both positions - and came to a clear conclusion.
The core legal message: Article 3 of the Basic Law sets limits
The Essen Labour Court found that collective agreements generally have a wide scope. However, this room for manoeuvre ends where differentiations are no longer objectively comprehensible. And that is precisely the case here.
Why?
Because there is no objective difference between parental leave, sick pay and child sick pay that justifies unequal treatment. In all cases:
-
the employment relationship is suspended,
-
employees do not receive any payments from the employer,
-
they are equally affected by price increases.
The only difference, according to the court:
Parental leave is based on a decision made by the employees themselves.
But this idea doesn't go very far. Parents are not completely free to decide - childcare places, financial obligations and the best interests of the child set de facto limits. Added to this is the constitutional protection of marriage and family under Article 6 of the Basic Law, which safeguards the decision to take parental leave.
The court therefore assessed the collective bargaining regulation as arbitrary within the meaning of the general principle of equality. The exclusion clause is invalid and the special payment must be granted.
A strong word for a collective agreement standard - and one that will occupy the parties to the collective agreement in the future.
What the plaintiff got - and what she didn't
The court ordered the employer to pay a total of 2,644.62 Euro plus interest for the months June 2023 to February 2024, with a further EUR 84.62 for February.
Why this specific sum?
Because the inflation adjustment was 220 euros per month - and the plaintiff had only received pro rata amounts due to her part-time work. The labour court clarified: If the exclusion of parental leave is unlawful, then the Entitlement to the full amount. Once pro rata, always pro rata - that cannot be maintained.
However, the lawsuit failed on one point:
The claim for compensation of at least 8,000 euros under the AGG was rejected.
The reason is legally subtle, but important:
According to Section 15 (3) AGG, the employer is only liable for discrimination in collective agreements if it acts wilfully or with gross negligence. And a legal issue that is difficult to assess - as in this case - does not justify gross negligence. The court emphasised that even the discriminatory nature of the standard was not obvious.
This means that the payment obligation is limited to compensation for inflation.
Why this judgement is important beyond the individual case
There are several reasons why this decision is remarkable:
-
It forces the parties to the collective agreement to be clear.
The TV Inflationsausgleich is relevant nationwide - especially in the public sector. If a regulation is contradictory, the courts have to correct it. That doesn't happen often, but it was necessary here. -
It strengthens parents on parental leave.
The decision makes it clear that parents must not become „price increase losers“. -
It brings movement to the discussion about equality.
The question of whether collective bargaining regulations have an indirect discriminatory effect will have to be examined more closely in future. -
It shows that courts mediate between collective bargaining autonomy and equality.
A balancing act - but one that is important for the rule of law.
This decision is therefore likely to have an impact far beyond Essen, particularly for employees in the TVöD and related collective bargaining areas.
What lessons employees and employers can learn from this
To ensure that this judgement is not only of legal interest, but also of practical help, here are the most important findings:
For employees:
-
Check inflation compensation even during parental leave.
Anyone who was on parental leave between 2023 and 2024 could also be eligible. -
assert claims in good time.
Preclusive periods under collective agreements are often short - if you are late, you lose your entitlement. -
Do not simply accept rejection.
The judgement shows: The legal situation is not set in stone.
For employers:
-
Apply collective bargaining regulations critically and carefully.
Even with clear tariff texts, the fundamental rights test can lead to different results. -
Examine individual cases instead of making schematic decisions.
Especially in the case of parental leave, long-term illness or part-time work. -
Transparent communication helps.
Many conflicts arise because employees cannot understand why they are being excluded.
A final tip
If you are wondering whether you were also entitled to inflation compensation or whether your employer has applied a collective agreement provision correctly, you should do one thing: Seek legal advice at an early stage. Collective bargaining structures are particularly complex in the public sector, and it is often worthwhile not having discussions alone. Many claims can be clarified - some can even be enforced.
